342 replies to this topic

[Shryke]

fionwe1987, on 24 April 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Because it is silly to believe that the presence of magic won't drastically alter the meaning of "realistic social forces". If the poor butcher boy from Fela Bottom can become the most powerful wizard in the world, wouldn't the kind of social pressures that shape hierarchy get altered?


How so? If a feudal society has women as capable as men of being powerful magicians, how do the sexist tendencies in this society not get altered?

Depends what magic means in the specific context and how one learns it.

It's not like women throughout history were any less capable of intellectual feats then men. That still didn't make a difference in who actually did that stuff though.

[Shryke]

Errant Bard, on 24 April 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

I think you misunderstood me. They can but the point is, if they do it's not to be historically accurate, because they don't write history, and if they can include such breaks from reality as dragons or magic, they can just as easily toy with something different than the trite misogynistic faux-middle-ages-europe. If realism was holding them down, they wouldn't put dragons in.

Just cause it isn't 100% realistic doesn't mean it's 0% realistic. "Historical accurate except for the dragons" or some such is a thing. A thing many people are looking for, judging from comments from people all over the internets and such.

[Marcus Cicero]

Mlle. Zabzie, on 24 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

No, wait, hang on, just because your impression of 2,000 years of global human history (vastly generalized) is that sexism is the historical norm does not mean that an historical world, as imagined by an author, needs also have that norm.  It is called speculative fiction for a reason.  That's not to say that the imagined world CAN'T have a system like that in place, but I find the choices interesting.  That is, why include women without agency, rapes and other sexual violence, but NOT include an analogue to the cult of Mary, or women with agency (of which there were many - the monks, who wrote history, generally demonized them, but that [prejudiced] narrative voice certainly does not need to control how the author of the book portrays them)?  Maybe there is a valid reason within the story or the world, but just saying "it is so because it's historically accurate" is both false in fact and false in logic.

I don't disagree with any of this.

fionwe1987, on 24 April 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Because it is silly to believe that the presence of magic won't drastically alter the meaning of "realistic social forces". If the poor butcher boy from Fela Bottom can become the most powerful wizard in the world, wouldn't the kind of social pressures that shape hierarchy get altered?

Sure. Of course, it depends on the type and accessibility of the magic. But most fantasy authors don't depict magic as leveling the hierarchical playing field. Kings and nobles still rule because of supposed blood superiority. All I'm saying is if you have that as a social norm, then sexism and racism are easier to justify because the existence of inherent inequality is already taken as a given. Now, authors don't have to depict feudal societies. But if they do, then it is realistic to show their harsher implications, UNLESS, as you point out, magic is developed in such a way as to change that.

Errant Bard, on 24 April 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

I think you misunderstood me. They can but the point is, if they do it's not to be historically accurate, because they don't write history, and if they can include such breaks from reality as dragons or magic, they can just as easily toy with something different than the trite misogynistic faux-middle-ages-europe. If realism was holding them down, they wouldn't put dragons in.

As for "realistic social forces", I raise you Galadriel and the whole Greek pantheon, for the Fantasy nobody has anything to say against, and Livia, Alienor d'Aquitaine, Anne de Bretagne, Joan of Arc, Margaret of Anjou, Mary of Medicis, among others, for history, and ask you to consider reading stuff like Druon's The Accursed Kings (which is historical fiction, but the role of women is probably quite different from what you expect.) What features in most Fantasy is only "realistic" for the same who would think Sir Walter Scott wrote pretty accurate historical fiction.

Seriously, when Tolkien is both the most successful modern Fantasy author, and the one farther from "realistic social forces", I don't see where that "accuracy" thing has a leg to stand on.

But it doesn't mean that you cannot write about misogynistic societies if you want, just that the excuse that "it was like that" is fake: the author is not forced to follow that path, as it's fiction he's writing.

Historical accuracy is a problematic term, that's why I've tried to stick with 'realism' in my posts.

Also, I've never denied that powerful women were plentiful in history. I stipulated that in my first post. But that doesn't mean gender prejudices weren't rampant.

You're right in that Tolkien doesn't depict realistic social forces. No where did I say that authors have to depict realistic social forces. Tolkien and Martin are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this. It's just that there's nothing wrong with them deciding to so for the sake of realism, authenticity, or drama.

Edited by Marcus Cicero, 25 April 2012 - 02:33 PM.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

But neither is Martin "realistic" from that standpoint.  He borrows bits and pieces from all sorts of different cultures and then invents things of his own.  His world does (to me) have consistent and believable cultural rules, but that is (again to me) patently NOT because it is a direct analogue of 15th Century England. For instance, in no way would the church have sanctioned polygamous sibling marriage. But that's the beauty of it.  I personally think Martin does a decent job of making the gender prejudice in his world (which certainly exists) something more than just a piece of window dressing.  It is meaningful to the story and to the development of the characters.  His handling of Cersei, Brienne, Arya, Sansa, Lysa, Catelyn, Melisandre, the situation in Dorne, etc. etc., again and again confront the issue.  To me, that is a different, and richer read than a book that just assumes "the times were sexist, therefore women weren't really important, and because that's the way it is, I'm only going to write three women - the one dimensional love interest, the villian, and the wisewoman who makes a prediction."  In lots of potboiler epic fantasy, women might as well be in purdah for as much as you see them.  Arguing that "that's the way it was" is inaccurate and misses the point entirely.

[Shryke]

How does it miss the point?

Look at something like The Hedge Knight. Same damn author. But no real female characters. There's a pretty puppeteer girl who gets attacked and defended and that's about it. (oh look, the only female character is the damsel in distress!) And no examination of gender isses or sexism or any of that.

And yet, it's still set in a sexist world. Why? Because it's a faux-medieval setting. No deeper purpose then that.

[Marcus Cicero]

Mlle. Zabzie, on 24 April 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

But neither is Martin "realistic" from that standpoint.  He borrows bits and pieces from all sorts of different cultures and then invents things of his own.  His world does (to me) have consistent and believable cultural rules, but that is (again to me) patently NOT because it is a direct analogue of 15th Century England. For instance, in no way would the church have sanctioned polygamous sibling marriage. But that's the beauty of it.  I personally think Martin does a decent job of making the gender prejudice in his world (which certainly exists) something more than just a piece of window dressing.  It is meaningful to the story and to the development of the characters.  His handling of Cersei, Brienne, Arya, Sansa, Lysa, Catelyn, Melisandre, the situation in Dorne, etc. etc., again and again confront the issue.  To me, that is a different, and richer read than a book that just assumes "the times were sexist, therefore women weren't really important, and because that's the way it is, I'm only going to write three women - the one dimensional love interest, the villian, and the wisewoman who makes a prediction."  In lots of potboiler epic fantasy, women might as well be in purdah for as much as you see them.  Arguing that "that's the way it was" is inaccurate and misses the point entirely.

You're over-simplifying my argument by reducing it to 'That's the way it was.' You're also taking the word 'realistic' too far. I just mean realistic in how a feudal society would actually play out. By that standard, Martin is realistic and Tolkien is unrealistic. Of course Martin is mashing together cultures and creating his own, but there's a sense of authenticity in that he seems to be portraying how humans and their societies wold actually behave under the conditions he's layed out.

Again I agree with most of what you're saying. I've never advocated that 'realistically portraying a medievalesque society' = 'barely writing in women, and then only ones without agency.'

[Rex Tyrannus]

"I'm actually still waiting for some fantasy that includes a potential Emperor being castrated and/or blinded to keep him from ascending to the throne"

The use of castration to block people from seeking the throne is discussed quite a lot in the fantasy novel "The Dragon Waiting" by John M Ford.  It's a great novel that actually does the type of historical fantasy that a number of people here are talking about.

[JEORDHl]

To the OP:

I don't know. Aidan. Seems like you're just trying to start some silly shit. Be honest now.  

---

Mr Abraham, I read it, and very generally agree with the sentiment but I found it completely unconvincing on merits of argumentation. You talked down your nose too much, dispensed with nothing in my opinion, and in the same, I got the distinct impression that the only true point I could decipher from the background was that this argumentative idiosyncrasy annoys you. Duly noted.

So, your closing lines got a chuckle out of me. The -Sometimes we make dumb arguments. This is one of those- wou kinda did, while managing a borderline snobbish and parsimonious undercurrent to your diction.

Since I`m on a roll here, and one of the few defending all the hapless Forrests and Bubbas out there, well... your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. So there.


ETA: unholy formatting, Batman!

Edited by JEORDHl, 24 April 2012 - 07:08 PM.

[aidan]

JEORDHl, on 24 April 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

To the OP:

I don't know. Aidan. Seems like you're just trying to start some silly shit. Be honest now.

If there wasn't value in this conversation, we wouldn't be four pages deep. I'm not sure of your point.

Edited by aidan, 24 April 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[JEORDHl]

The argument Daniel feels too simplistic is one that crops up here, for instance. He, likewise, posts here, and if he's similar to most of us his read-to-post ratio is probably the same. So, you invite him to argue his point on your blog, but then link the blog here.

The only assumption in the above is that he only encounters that argument here, which is unlikely, but still. Why so round about, I wonder. You two share some beers or private conversation lately?

ETA: In case I'm not being clear again, I'm not questioning the value of the conversation. Rather, the value of the chosen process to present it, and Daniel's argument itself.

Edited by JEORDHl, 24 April 2012 - 07:32 PM.

[aidan]

Uh, okay.

[JEORDHl]

Okay.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Shryke, on 24 April 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

How does it miss the point?

Look at something like The Hedge Knight. Same damn author. But no real female characters. There's a pretty puppeteer girl who gets attacked and defended and that's about it. (oh look, the only female character is the damsel in distress!) And no examination of gender isses or sexism or any of that.

And yet, it's still set in a sexist world. Why? Because it's a faux-medieval setting. No deeper purpose then that.

Well - I would argue that his world is well created and deeper than one novella, the novellas link to the broader work, and if you read other Hedge Knight novellas, you DO find women dealing with these issues, so I'm not sure that holds water. But this debate isn't about Martin, really.  As I have said, what he has created WORKS in his world (which is, to repeat, not England in the 15th Century, no matter how many comparisons I can draw to actual people in the 15th C).  I don't have a problem with that.  What I do have a problem with is the assumption that a pseudo feudal world necessitates sexism (it doesn't), and the formost (or only) explanation for sexism in the writing (and, and this is distinguishable, sexism portrayed in scenes in the work) is "that's just the way it was."  Flip it on its head, because there's a similar problem in your basic Space Opera (Dune, I'm looking at you).  The society's structure is only bound by the author's imagination and intent.

Marcus Cicero, on 24 April 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

You're over-simplifying my argument by reducing it to 'That's the way it was.' You're also taking the word 'realistic' too far. I just mean realistic in how a feudal society would actually play out. By that standard, Martin is realistic and Tolkien is unrealistic. Of course Martin is mashing together cultures and creating his own, but there's a sense of authenticity in that he seems to be portraying how humans and their societies wold actually behave under the conditions he's layed out.

Again I agree with most of what you're saying. I've never advocated that 'realistically portraying a medievalesque society' = 'barely writing in women, and then only ones without agency.'

Ok - I hear you.  But to me Tolkein is unrealistic because, quite frankly, he has little to no (ok no) character development, not necessarily because of the structure of his world.  His world is a distillation of good and evil.  There are very few (maybe no?) characters that are realistic in the sense of having some good or some bad in them (maybe Galadriel and Boromir?). The structure of society isn't important because the characters, and their interactions with each other, aren't really that mportant.

He is of the latter school.  I can count the number of female characters in LoTR who have speaking roles on one hand - Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (miniscule role and a clear parody of Vita Sackville-West), Eowyn (necessary for deus ex machina prophecy), Goldberry (who is probably the most hated character in the book after maybe only Bombadil), Arwen (they had to more or less invent a greater role for her in the movie), and Galadriel.  Oh, and I guess Sam's Rosie, though I can't remember if she ever says much of anything. (I say this as someone who LIKES Tolkein, btw).

[Marcus Cicero]

Mlle. Zabzie, on 24 April 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Well - I would argue that his world is well created and deeper than one novella, the novellas link to the broader work, and if you read other Hedge Knight novellas, you DO find women dealing with these issues, so I'm not sure that holds water. But this debate isn't about Martin, really.  As I have said, what he has created WORKS in his world (which is, to repeat, not England in the 15th Century, no matter how many comparisons I can draw to actual people in the 15th C).  I don't have a problem with that.  What I do have a problem with is the assumption that a pseudo feudal world necessitates sexism (it doesn't), and the formost (or only) explanation for sexism in the writing (and, and this is distinguishable, sexism portrayed in scenes in the work) is "that's just the way it was."  Flip it on its head, because there's a similar problem in your basic Space Opera (Dune, I'm looking at you).  The society's structure is only bound by the author's imagination and intent.




Ok - I hear you.  But to me Tolkein is unrealistic because, quite frankly, he has little to no (ok no) character development, not necessarily because of the structure of his world.  His world is a distillation of good and evil.  There are very few (maybe no?) characters that are realistic in the sense of having some good or some bad in them (maybe Galadriel and Boromir?). The structure of society isn't important because the characters, and their interactions with each other, aren't really that mportant.

He is of the latter school.  I can count the number of female characters in LoTR who have speaking roles on one hand - Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (miniscule role and a clear parody of Vita Sackville-West), Eowyn (necessary for deus ex machina prophecy), Goldberry (who is probably the most hated character in the book after maybe only Bombadil), Arwen (they had to more or less invent a greater role for her in the movie), and Galadriel.  Oh, and I guess Sam's Rosie, though I can't remember if she ever says much of anything. (I say this as someone who LIKES Tolkein, btw).

Good points. He's unrealistic for a number of reasons. I still contend that the way he handles his society is one of them. It's a glorification of blood-line hierarchies. Aragorn is the 'rightful' king, and oh yeah, he just happens to be the perfect man for the job. The Fellowship has no commoners, and their competence and desirability for the job seems directly linked with their nobility. The system is deliberately idealized, as Tolkien himself would probably admit. The nasty implications of a feudal structure are glossed over. I'm not pointing this out to bash Tolkien (although that might be inevitable, seeing as I'm not  LOTR fan), but instead to show that his deliberate lack of realism extends beyond his paper-thin characters and his treatment of good and evil.

Tolkien has no interest in straddling the divide between epic fantasy and historical fiction, he's writing purely in the former, in obvious contrast to someone like Martin or Kay.

[DanielAbraham]

Hey, JEORDHI.  

Generally I try not to get into a wrangle.  I put my case forward, it didn't convince you, and I can respect that.  Batting it back and forth in public doesn't tend to be as rewarding as I like.  But I hang out here a lot, so I'll take a swing at it.

I wasn't trying to say that the argument annoyed me aesthetically.  I was trying to say that it doesn't make sense as a way to deflect criticism of a text because 1) it assumes history is monolithic (if there's sexism, why didn't the author choose some other part of history to depict?), 2) applies only to a very small subset of fantasy projects (no one makes this argument about Naria or Discworld), and 3) only applies in narrow ways to the ones folks choose to apply it to (as in sexism and racism but not Catholicism).

As I said in the original piece, I think there are legitimate reasons to have problematic issues in a fantasy project.  Saying "it was really like that" ignores that the writer was choosing which aspects of history to include, which to discard.  I think that there are very good reasons, for example, for ASOIAF to include the sexism and sexual violence that it does, and that the inclusion of them informs my understanding and appreciation of the project.  It seems to me that saying a Westeros with sexual equality and without rape would undercut the tone and intent of the series is a powerful argument and could lead into some interesting discussions.  ASOIAF doesn't include a strong, centralized church or an overwhelming concern with the disposition of the immortal soul (which would have been historically more accurate) because their inclusion would (I think) have undercut the tone and intention of the project.  Westeros isn't the kind of place where the good go to their eternal reward in Heaven, and if it was -- if that sense of divine justice restoring the balance was integral to that world the way it was in Europe --  it wouldn't be Westeros anymore, and it wouldn't be as good a story.  I think these are strong, productive, meaningful arguments.

Likewise, if you look at someone like Kay or (to riff on Ty) John M. Ford who are deeply inspired by history, seeing what they've adopted and what they've changed tells you about what they were writing and why their novels are more powerful than reading a history textbook.

"But medieval Europe was really like that" is . . . I'm looking for kinder terms here.  It's a weak argument.  The one thing you can say about every faux-medieval fantasy is it differs in some significant way from medieval Europe.

As to the tone argument, I apologize if I was sounding snooty.  I try to include myself in the group of people who can sometimes make hasty, badly considered arguments.  I'm as fallible as the next person.

[JEORDHl]

Sorry for the tardy response. Kids. Bed.

---

You don't have to capitalize my handle. I had to use some creative upper and lower characters in order to free up the handle. I'm not roaring my name.

I do think the discussion has merit, I was just a little surprised you didn't post it here since I think what you're arguing against originated here. That said, I can't recall a time when a published author actually initiated a thread in this Lit forum, so I don't know. Maybe the Blogosphere is more relevant.

`But X was like that,`` is a blunt argument, I`ll grant that. And while I`m sure there are enough folks around here that would Godwin it if they could, it`s still tough to argue with. I can see how it`s annoying. But I can`t imagine anyone actually wants to read a fantasy novel about a humble farm boy from a modest homestead that discovers he has a green thumb and then spends the entire novel questing the various ways to grow a pumpkin large enough to win at the local Fair. Myself, I`m interested in other kinds of contests, whether it`s wit and wile, regional and national, whichever, whatever. All of those are buoyed by the undercurrents of power and with that advantage invariably, and insidiously, comes oppression. I don`t know how you can get around it. What you seem to be arguing against is depiction by authorial fiat, or outright glorification. And that I get.

But then we have to agree that if authors aren`t necessarily writing the story they want to read, they`re at the very least writing the story they want to tell. And since writing is an action, if people want to psychoanalyze an author by his or her work, well, all the power to them.  On the other side however I've also seen arguments in this very forum decrying an author as a misogynist for having rape in his books despite its happening to men [figure that one out] much less also having contextual framework of the narrative. I've also read, here, authors being diagnosed with inherent character or moral flaws because they're not thinking of their audiences feelings before writing such scenes or other depravities. I mean, Daniel... what's really simplistic here, even of the author that appears to glorify rather than examine?

It's tough nut, that reminds me of the penultimate question. What came first-- the really fucking evil chicken, or the... omphalos.  

Huh. Someone get me a Dephic Oracle with a chisel over here. On second thought, give her a cleaver too. That fowl has beady eyes.

Edited by JEORDHl, 24 April 2012 - 10:34 PM.

[kalbear]

Quote

Daniel... what's really simplistic here, even of the author that appears to glorify rather than examine?

What's really simplistic is talking about arguments that might have happened at some point with some people without quoting, referencing or speaking to who said what. That adds...what, exactly? Other than "Yep, that sucks, moving on?" How completely weak. I mean, I can do that too if you like - how about a fan who said their favorite part of the story was when the evil character gets raped by another character, or the person that used Handmaid's Tale to justify Shae's abuse. Owait...i can actually source those things. Sorry - I'll try and be more generic and vague next time.

Sorry that some feminist hurt you some time, Jeordhi. Hopefully you'll get some counseling and be able to sleep at night.

Quote

What you seem to be arguing against is depiction by authorial fiat, or outright glorification. And that I get.

No, he's arguing specifically about fanboys who justify bad authorial fiat with flimsy arguments.

Edited by Kalbear, 24 April 2012 - 10:46 PM.

[JEORDHl]

It's not all about you, pumpkin. And it's a valid argument.

[kalbear]

Quote

It's not all about you, pumpkin. And it's a valid argument.

What's a valid argument, Jeordhi? That someone, some time, misinterpreted a text badly and didn't support it well? That because someone said bad things about an author that were absurd that all things stated about all authors are therefore silly?  That bad worldbuilding isn't actually lazy because...uh...the author didn't want to get into it that much or really wanted to portray a sexist world even though it doesn't make sense to do so? Those are all pretty shitty arguments, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I've simply misunderstood what you meant by bringing up a couple anecdotes about some readers, some time, doing something.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing here. Yes, it sucks when extremists judge your work poorly. That doesn't excuse shitty writing, nor does it excuse shitty planning. And it really doesn't excuse "I was going for realism" when what you mean is "I was going for the commonly held misconceptions about what the 800-year period that people talk about as medieval times as realism". It is a lazy, bad argument no matter who makes it. Now, if you're arguing that an author may want to be lazy because they have more important things to talk about (to them) and they don't want to be a champion of feminism or misogyny, okay, that's fair. I don't need Winnie the Pooh to be a feminist masterpiece. But that just means if someone says that they're lazy for not doing something, the correct response is 'yes, I was lazy'.

[Grack21]

Ackem.

I agree with Mr Abraham. I have nothing to add really.